A perfect example for me would be Harbeth. If this is what you like then
more power to you, but please dont mistake these type of designs as
accurate.
Bad example, I think. At least for certain models. The SuperHL5plus I owned was beautifully neutral-sounding. JA from Stereophile in measuring said it measured "superbly even" aside from a lively cabinet it measured "beyond reproach." Stereonet sent it for extensive measurements and the result was what they deemed a combination of frequency extension and linearity that was to their memory "unprecedented." Perhaps you are thinking of other Harbeth models? (Though I still find Harbeth to get tone "right" in a way that escapes many other speakers). Anyway, not gonna say more on that as that's not the reason for this thread. Anyone can prefer what he prefers of course. |
Interesting jsautter.
JA has been measuring speakers, and mapping the results to audible characteristics, for as long as I can remember. I have no idea what type of experience you have to compare - hence no idea how much weight to grant your claims. (?)
Can you give me any examples of the best systems you are referring to?
In terms of my experience, over the decades I've heard most of the "big guns" in high end audio. I've been working in the pro sound world (film/television) since the late 80s, my work having been mixed at various millions-of-dollars pro systems.
Not sure what type of "higher bar" you are talking about.
(And, if my experience still isn't enough to recognize good sound, I'm wondering about whatever relevance the systems you have in mind have for the real world choices for most audiophiles).
|
Thanks for all the great responses!
@almarg
(and others)
Yes the whole tone/timbre thing is fairly vexed. Like a lot of us, when I hear, or play, unamplified instruments I am struck by the richness and harmonic beauty (and, often, "warmth"). I think "that's what I want, wow that would be great if my system could reproduce that."
Unfortunately I find that every system homogenizes instruments, and instrumental timbre to one degree or another. (I want to lay blame on speakers, which typically introduce the most distortion in the chain).
Even the most "neutral" or "best" measuring speakers I've heard homogenize, in that once I hear drums, cymbals, sax, trumpet etc the sense of "surprise" is gone; I know how those will sound through the speaker forever more, unlike the sense of almost "limitless" timbral pallet in the real world.
So when I hear so many instruments and voices sounding essentially timbrally "right" through a speaker, as I do through my Spendors it's hard to decide whether such speakers more accurately reproduce the actual timbral qualities of the real thing, or whether the speakers have a "voice" or "coloration" that happens to be consonant with the real thing.
My feeling is that it's more of the latter than the former, as I can hear a consistent voice from the Spendors, like any speaker. There isn't the level of timbral variety and surprise of the real thing, but most instruments/voices have a *quality* that *feels like* the real thing.
Hand claps through the speaker sound timbrally like my own hand claps in the room. I have an acoustic guitar I play, that I've recorded and when I play it back on some speakers it sounds vivid, but timbrally gray, plastic, electronic. "Made of the wrong stuff" and not evoking the same tonal colors in my mind's eye as does the real thing.
When I play the recording of my acoustic guitar on the Spendors - I'll be damned but my brain says "yes, THAT is what my guitar sounds like FOR REAL." The same "sparkly, warm, golden" overtones that I "see" when I play the guitar. The same "slightly papery/fleshy quality" of the fingers on the strings. I can play that recording on the Spendors, then play my guitar and...yup...that's essentially, timbrally, what it sounds like.
This is something I really value - for the same reason I can sit and play my guitar and be transfixed by the beauty of it's tone, if a speaker can do some of the same thing - even by subterfuge of some sort - it's much more pleasurable than speaker producing a hyper-detailed, holographic "guitar thing" in front of me, but which never gives me the sparkle and inherent richness/timbral warmth I enjoy in the real thing. So every speaker homogenizes, but I prefer one that homogenizes in a voice that reminds me of the qualities I value most in the real thing.
|
jsautter So what I see is a bunch of speaker design "no-nos" Which somehow add up to very good measured performance - very often more neutral than the vast majority of measurements found for other speakers. Take a look even at JA's measurements for the Harbeth Monitor 30.2 40th An. edition. Beautifully even tonal balance, even the bass "maximally damped" design, cabinet resonances there but "low in level" by JA's comment. (A bit of a bass bump there, but typical for measurements of most speakers, including my beloved Thiel 3.7s, and even my sealed-box Spendor 3/5s). Totally disagree that the Harbeths homogenize instruments - I find the opposite (relative to loudspeakers in general - every loudspeaker to my ear homogenizes to some degree, but I find the Harbeths among the most convincing, tonally). Anyway, as you say, horses for courses. No reason you have to like them. But I do think that once we start making claims about speakers being "colored" or "not neutral enough" etc we are in to objective-claims territory. Btw, I'm also a fan of time/phase coherent speakers as I own Thiel 2.7
speakers as well. I just find different speaker designs do one or
another thing like like better - no perfect speaker. |
snapsc,
I"m familiar with that thread.
I fully respect the work done by Toole et al on correlating speaker design with general listener preferences. Problem for me is the personal applicability. I've auditioned the speakers designed via that research - e.g. Revel - and found them to be extremely competent, and to "sound" like the measure as much as the measurements can predict. But it hasn't predicted this "sounds right to me" specific timbral quality I'm talking about. In other words, the Revel speakers just never had the "it" factor in their voice that made me immediately feel 'yes, that's like the real thing.'
(It would be fascinating to undertake the Harman Kardon blind tests. Statistically I'd have to expect that I would actually choose a Revel speaker over ones I *think* I like more in sighted tests. Which is an interesting conundrum for a buyer - buy what sounded better under blind conditions, or what pleased you more under sighted conditions in which you'll actually listen?).
|
mijostyn
I started off smitten by electrostatics. I owned Quad ESL 63s, and later also added the Gradient dipole subwoofers made especially for the Quads - still I think the most seamless dynamic woofer/stat blend I've heard, even including the ML hybrids. (I've heard tons of different ML speakers).
I have of course encountered most of the largest electrostatics exhibited at audio shows. Aside from that I also have more personal, extended experience with various designs. As for "full range," depending on your definition, I use to listen to the ML CLS, I also had a fair amount of time, on and off over a few weeks, listening to my music on the giant full-range A1 Sound Labs, and I also used to listen to a huge double-stacked Quad ESL57s set up at another acquaintance's house.
I still love electrostatics for their particular strengths - I don't even have to mention them as I think most of us know that electrostatic sound.But for me I can't ultimately be satisfied with electrostatics. They just move air in a different way that to me sounds detached and somewhat weightless and skeletal, like I'm viewing the performers through a window in to another room, whereas good dynamic speakers have an air-moving dynamic palpability that feels "more real" and/or that connects me more with the music. Dynamic speakers recreate the performers flesh-and-blood, rather than conjuring up ghosts.
I get why there are fervent fans of electrostats though. They do other aspects of accuracy, believability and realism that...if those are your focus...make them really compelling.
|
wow bdp24, that sounds very cool. Wish I could have heard that!
|
mijostyn,
Even my tiny little Spendor 3/5s spec'd only down to
90Hz have a palpable "thereness" that I haven't heard from any
electrostat. Adding a dynamic woofer to an electrostat seems to produce
pallpability in the region covered by the woofer, but the frequency
range covered by the panel has that ghostly sound.
So every electrostatic I've heard (a lot!) either full range or hybrid, has had the characteristics I described. I guess I'll just have to take your word that a Black Swan version exists somewhere that sounds different.In any case, I'd say my generalization about electrostics, especially any of a size/price I'd ever be in a position to own, is inductively sound. :)
|
jaferd
It seems intuitively obvious that an accurate system would reproduce the beautiful tonality of natural instruments and voices, so that's what "everyone" would shoot for.
I think this all gets complicated by the vast number of colorations inherent in the recording/mixing/mastering/reproduction chain (including speakers designs, different rooms etc). I've seen some people, who know more than I do about speaker design, explain that it's essentially impossible for a speaker to truly, accurately reproduce the original sound of instruments (different polar responses and other issues being a bugaboo). Whether that's strictly the case or not, it seems like many can do better than others, at least to our individual ears.
My ideal is a speaker that would indeed reproduce the amazingly wide variety and richness of "the real thing" (be it piano, voice, guitar, and many other instruments). Some seem to get closer than others. But as a compromise, since much of what we listen to is artificially constructed (and often sounds that way), I at least want a speaker that helps me enjoy the music as much as possible, and I'll go with a speaker that has a general "voice" that sounds generally "right" in terms of an organic quality, even if strictly speaking it's not able to perfectly reproduce the original sound.
As per my OP, I'm not wedded to only the Spendors. Not at all. I have a number of speakers that for me all capture some essentially "right" and pleasing qualities.
|
